open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked Make sucide ganking more difficult
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 : last (15)

Author Topic

Dianeces
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.06.12 15:22:00 - [301]
 

Originally by: Morgenrei
No insurance payout.


I agree. Mission runners should not get insurance.

Banedon Runestar
Gallente
Gravity Mining and Manufacturing Inc
The Company LLC
Posted - 2008.06.12 16:28:00 - [302]
 

Yes, a thousand times, yes!

Mistress Suffering
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
Posted - 2008.06.13 01:26:00 - [303]
 

No insurance for Concord kills (which is really what he proposes) is fine.


Kasheem Cetanes
Optimus Crime.
Triumvirate.
Posted - 2008.06.13 08:00:00 - [304]
 

Suicide Ganking ISN'T POSSIBLE, if the people piloting their ships aren't DUMB. I mean, seriously, warp to Zero and align in less than ohhh. 10 seconds.

It takes me .5 seconds to lock + 2 seconds lag, plus 2.5 seconds to scan your cargo / your fittings then another 2 to 5 seconds to make a call. Then my mate takes another 2 seconds to lock you and then scram / blow you away. If your hauler doesn't take, oh 20 seconds to align and warp you are PROBABLY fine. However, if you are afk autopiloting. I mean, its your own damn fault if you are auto-piloting in a hauler filled with minerals through high sec, or in a shuttle filled with CAPITAL SKILLS AND IMPLANTS.

Hank Cousteau
Center for Advanced Studies

Posted - 2008.06.13 08:15:00 - [305]
 

If your partner isn't scanning in the system before, you're doing it wrong. That reasoning is pretty artificial.

Support some kind of insurance penalty, even if is minor such as adding +1% of cost per full minus one sec rating (so maxes out at 43% cost). Also advocate the doubling of sec loss per attack/kill/podding, it's absurd you can kill over a dozen people before forced out of high-sec.

Dagas Hunter
Posted - 2008.06.13 21:50:00 - [306]
 

I support this, it doesn't make sense that the insurance company should pay you when CONCORD shoots you down since it's effectively 100 % chance that your ship is doomed when they show up so and insurance is supposed to protect people from accidents etc. not when they choose to deliberately loose their ship, also destroying your own ship should be considered insurance fraud just like IRL.

The insurance companies in EVE are total suckers since they have no rules at all except that you can't repackage the item.

Farrqua
Minmatar
In Igne Morim
Posted - 2008.06.13 22:04:00 - [307]
 

Edited by: Farrqua on 13/06/2008 22:06:55
Originally by: Hank Cousteau
If your partner isn't scanning in the system before, you're doing it wrong. That reasoning is pretty artificial.

Support some kind of insurance penalty, even if is minor such as adding +1% of cost per full minus one sec rating (so maxes out at 43% cost). Also advocate the doubling of sec loss per attack/kill/podding, it's absurd you can kill over a dozen people before forced out of high-sec.



Increasing the cost for Sec hits kind of hurts that anti-pirates in the game. They get a sec hit when attacking a pirate in Lo-Sec with a rating higher than the -5.0 level (ie -4.9 to +5.0). And it hits the Pirates that do not High Sec Suicide gank. So penalizing folks that have nothing really to do with Suicide ganking.

Maybe if you get popped by concord you receive a special multiplier from the Insurance agency that increases the cost of insuring future ships.

Lt Graco
Posted - 2008.06.13 22:11:00 - [308]
 

Her: "Allstate Insurance, how may I help you?"

Me: "Hi I was in a wreck that totaled my car but i had full coverage through you guys. Can you send me a check?"

Her: "Oh! That's terrible. I hope everyone is ok?! How did the wreck occur?"

Me: "I saw an armored car pulling away from picking up at Walmart so I strapped some explosives to the front and drove at it as fast as I could....only problem is some cops showed up and took out my car with shotguns. So when can I expect the check?"


Zorok
Cosmic Cimmerians
Usurper.
Posted - 2008.06.14 01:24:00 - [309]
 

I'll sign onto this...High sec is not a ganker's haven- never was and should never be.

Dianeces
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.06.14 01:26:00 - [310]
 

Originally by: Zorok
I'll sign onto this...High sec is not a ganker's haven- never was and should never be.


Still isn't.

Wonton Tomato
Minmatar
Suicide Girls
Posted - 2008.06.16 19:32:00 - [311]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar
...and his loot goes to the gankers, who lose next to nothing thanks to insurance.

Whether this or some other solution is implemented, the question is does suicide ganking need a nerf or not?

and there is nothing he can do to save himself.


No, no and no. The security status lost costs the player plenty enough. Insurance is just that, insurance, no matter what role you play. Warp to zero nerfed suicide ganking enough. We don't need cuddly protected mission runners in cold harsh space, they can save themselves by staying docked.

Why isn't there a thumbs down option? All I see is a fanboi box to check. Rolling Eyes

Grann Thefauto
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2008.06.16 19:54:00 - [312]
 

I support tradable kill rights, but if you're going to pimp out your ship expect to be a target.

Buzz Boulderbrains
Posted - 2008.06.17 06:33:00 - [313]
 

I've just spent the last 2 or 3 hours reading this entire thread/conversation/argument. Since I've invested that much time reading your thoughts, please take a moment to read mine. I promise that it won't take longer than a few minutes, and while that might cost some of you some serious "loss-of-ISK-makin-time," it might shed some light on why this kind of change is *absolutely* necessary.

I learned some new things by spending those hours reading this thread. For those of you who have been playing this game for so long that you think you actually fly a ship in outer space, please ignore the blatant whining, crying, boo-hooing, etc. that follows below. I pay for the privilege of playing just like you do.

Some of what I learned from this highly-enlightened discussion:

(1) "Criminals" seem to have it made. Criminals have all of 0.0 space to themselves. Criminals have all of "low-sec" space to themselves. Criminals now want all of "hi-sec" space to themselves and believe PvE players are just like NPCs.

(2) I am not ALLOWED to insure my ships for anywhere close to their actual value. CNR max insurance is a joke. 109m-32m(cost)=77m return on a 500m ship (net loss 423m +). Hulk max insurance is a joke. 29m-9m(cost)=20m return on a 100m ship (net loss 80m +).

(3) Because I'm successful in running missions, and wish to become more successful, means that I am a loser, should not play the game, and/or should be the target of every criminal in "hi-sec" space. I ruin game-play for everyone else in the game.

Some simple observations for those who are so removed from reality that you can't see straight:

-Contrary to popular belief, mission-running is not without risk, particularly solo. I've lost many ships while trying to complete missions even with the help of others. It's called a learning experience, and I realize it takes time to get to *your* skill level of uber-leetness. Until that time, I'll be taking that risk when I head into level3 or level4 missions by myself, or even with a small group of friends.

-Mining roid fields isn't without risk either. As you gankers are *well* aware, these mining ships aren't very defendable, and probably take very little of your skill or ammo to destroy. Sometimes you even come by and try to can-flip me, or otherwise tempt me into dispatching my 5 meager drones on your uber-exhumer-killer. I might be weak, outnumbered, and outgunned, but I'm not stoopid my friend.

-Gankers are like folks who would sit in a rowboat over a school of fish dropping hand-grenades in the water. They complain about how un-economical it is to waste a perfectly good hand-grenade on such small fish. They feel that they are entitled to get their money back on the rowboat when they were the ones who blew the damned thing up in the first place. Besides, you already control 2/3 or even 3/4 of the damned lake you fish in.

-For those who would tell me to shut up, that this is a "MMO" and that "you don't participate" by "doing what we do," I say this: This game is *clearly* setup for solo and small-time corporation play. It seems to be intended to serve the needs of the many. (I *do* participate, just not with you)

I fully support this idea- you shouldn't be given insurance payments on your Concord'ed ships, especially when CCP can't provide me with a way to insure my own ships.

You think I'm a crybaby, and I think you're a crybaby.

Clearly, I'm not a "normal" Eve player by your definition. I don't have your evil streak, your malcontent attitude towards others, your greed stamina, or your general self-centered nature in the game. I'm not saying that this game should be without you. You stay on your side, and I'll stay on mine... When I feel I have enough skillpoints, ships, and ISK to counter your uber-leetness, I will venture into low-sec space and try to kick your butts. Until then, I have rocks to mine, and missions to run.

I've said my piece.
-Buzz

Buzz Boulderbrains
Posted - 2008.06.17 06:34:00 - [314]
 

/signed

Venomire
GoonWaffe
SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
Posted - 2008.06.17 07:08:00 - [315]
 

Consider the insurance company in EVE to be like a Swiss bank. They don't ask questions and keep the matter confidential.

RazorDreamz
Caldari
Chaotic dynamics
Posted - 2008.06.17 10:24:00 - [316]
 

Also need a counter module to the ship and cargo scanners. This would allow haulers to prevent gankers from peeking. They can still blow the ship up but wouldn't know exactly what was inside so there would be a risk involved for the gankers.

Jastra
Gallente
Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
Posted - 2008.06.17 11:04:00 - [317]
 

/signed, no insurance

Molock Saronen
Posted - 2008.06.17 13:18:00 - [318]
 


Drago Vanguard
Vanguard Corporation
Posted - 2008.06.17 13:24:00 - [319]
 

Originally by: RazorDreamz
Also need a counter module to the ship and cargo scanners. This would allow haulers to prevent gankers from peeking. They can still blow the ship up but wouldn't know exactly what was inside so there would be a risk involved for the gankers.


It exists. And it actually lets you carry more cargo. Stupidity of victims is the only thing that makes suicide ganking viable, as it stands.

Farrqua
Minmatar
In Igne Morim
Posted - 2008.06.17 16:04:00 - [320]
 

Edited by: Farrqua on 17/06/2008 16:05:28
Edited by: Farrqua on 17/06/2008 16:05:15
Originally by: Buzz Boulderbrains
(1) "Criminals" seem to have it made. Criminals have all of 0.0 space to themselves. Criminals have all of "low-sec" space to themselves. Criminals now want all of "hi-sec" space to themselves and believe PvE players are just like NPCs.


What criminals are these that occupy ALL of 0.0? Could you give a list of criminals? And what constitutes these guys being criminals anyway? There are a few large Alliances and individual corps that do not allow piracy or any form of it.

And as far as lo-sec I am sure Jade might argue with you about SF being a criminal organization. I am not sure if there are or they are not really but I am sure he can comment about it. I do believe if you read about who they are and how they present themselves criminal activity os not one of there main pursuits. Its more of a political RP thing. And yes Pirates (and Anti-Pirates) inhabit Lo-sec but very few of these guy venture into 0.0.

I understand you did read the entire thread, That is more than some will do to really try to understand the issue. However from you statements like the one above it does show your experience of is less than worldly.

There is nothing wrong with feeling the way you do, but it sounds like what you are saying is "they have their area to play I want my area off limits." Am I close?

The insurance bit is true. But look at the other proposals about the insurance. They are pushing to get rid of it all together. Not only for the removal from being Concorded, but actually remove it from the game.


Zaran Darkstar
Divine Slaves

Posted - 2008.06.17 18:50:00 - [321]
 

From the title i got the impression it would be a lame suggestion. But it's in fact the

Remove insurance payoff if you get killed by Concord

Very good idea and preety simple.
Approved!

Zaran Darkstar
Divine Slaves
Posted - 2008.06.17 19:06:00 - [322]
 

Originally by: Wonton Tomato
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
...and his loot goes to the gankers, who lose next to nothing thanks to insurance.

Whether this or some other solution is implemented, the question is does suicide ganking need a nerf or not?

and there is nothing he can do to save himself.


No, no and no. The security status lost costs the player plenty enough. Insurance is just that, insurance, no matter what role you play. Warp to zero nerfed suicide ganking enough. We don't need cuddly protected mission runners in cold harsh space, they can save themselves by staying docked.

Why isn't there a thumbs down option? All I see is a fanboi box to check. Rolling Eyes



I agree that there should be a thumbs down option.

Apart from that i discagree with the rest of what you say. And here is why.
1) People that get the security hit can get back the lost security status with the rating/mission runing. They do it anyway.
2) Lets imagine a common situation. A marauder pimped with faction/commander stuff is playing it right and warps to 0 etc. Of course when he jumps on the other side he gets ganged by several insured torp Ravens with tech 1 equipment.
The Ravens get back the cost of losses to the concord minus the cost of tech 1 trop launchers and other tech 1 stuff that is ridiculusly low. While you kill an 1 bilion ship and get the modules probably costing all together several bilions while you lost after insurance maximun 10millions each. Without the insurance the cost would be alltogether near 1 billion again but you would gain around 2 billions from the faction stuff so net gain 1 billion profit isn't enough?

As it is now gangers may gang anything,not just the pimped Navy BS/Marauder with the Faction/officer stuff but even a normal BS with tech 2 stuff could be a target. Even a Freighter with scrap metal would be a target. I was thinking to learn freighter skill and i don't because of this. Because when the gangers are losing 0 due to the insurance it's very possible to kill your freighter loaded with scrap metal just for the excitement.

That is why i favor this idea. So you still will have profit by ganging the very tempting targets but at least the rest of the players who may fly just a Marauder with tech 2 or a BS with some occasional faction module will be safer. What you are doing now is more or less an exploit of the game mechanics.


Dianeces
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.06.17 20:27:00 - [323]
 

Originally by: Buzz Boulderbrains

(1) "Criminals" seem to have it made. Criminals have all of 0.0 space to themselves. Criminals have all of "low-sec" space to themselves. Criminals now want all of "hi-sec" space to themselves and believe PvE players are just like NPCs.



PvPers =/= criminals. So you can remove nullsec from the equation. You could argue that pirates are criminals because Concord dislikes them. I personally disagree with this, because most pirates I know are looking for PvP, and any profits they make are a side benefit.

Originally by: Buzz Boulderbrains

I am not ALLOWED to insure my ships for anywhere close to their actual value. CNR max insurance is a joke. 109m-32m(cost)=77m return on a 500m ship (net loss 423m +). Hulk max insurance is a joke. 29m-9m(cost)=20m return on a 100m ship (net loss 80m +).



If you want the improved performance of faction or T2 ships, you have to live with the drawback of not having much insurance to fall back on. Otherwise there would be no reason to use T1 ships unless you didn't have the skills for T2. PvPers deal with this issue on a daily basis, and most of us don't ***** about it.

Originally by: Buzz Boulderbrains

(3) Because I'm successful in running missions, and wish to become more successful, means that I am a loser, should not play the game, and/or should be the target of every criminal in "hi-sec" space. I ruin game-play for everyone else in the game.



If you want to pimp out a ship, that's fine. Nobody is arguing you shouldn't be able to do that. What you have to understand is the more you pimp your ship, the more you should be gankable. The difference in opinions (among the sensable people) is over what level of pimpness you should have before you should start worrying.

Originally by: Buzz Boulderbrains

-Contrary to popular belief, mission-running is not without risk, particularly solo. I've lost many ships while trying to complete missions even with the help of others. It's called a learning experience, and I realize it takes time to get to *your* skill level of uber-leetness. Until that time, I'll be taking that risk when I head into level3 or level4 missions by myself, or even with a small group of friends.



If you haven't figured out how to run level 4s safely by the time you decide to start pimping out a Navy Raven, I have zero sympathy for you. There are websites that tell you exactly how to run each and every mission in a manner that practically eliminates the risk by preventing unwanted aggro. At this point in time mission running is more of a science than an art.

Originally by: Buzz Boulderbrains

-Mining roid fields isn't without risk either. As you gankers are *well* aware, these mining ships aren't very defendable, and probably take very little of your skill or ammo to destroy. Sometimes you even come by and try to can-flip me, or otherwise tempt me into dispatching my 5 meager drones on your uber-exhumer-killer. I might be weak, outnumbered, and outgunned, but I'm not stoopid my friend.



Mining barges also tend to drop, in the grand scheme of things, very poor loot (with the possible exception of people who use entirely unnecessary deadspace boosters to tank). There are much better uses of sec status. And yes, sec status recovery is a serious penalty. There is only one way for me to increase it, shooting NPCs. I can't bribe Concord, can't shoot pirates, can't do anything but carebear to recover sec. So even though I may be making money while ratting, I'm still being forced to do something I don't like.

Originally by: Buzz Boulderbrains

This game is *clearly* setup for solo and small-time corporation play.



This game is clearly set up to encourage team play, not solo. The fact that strategic aspects such as capitals, outposts, sovereignty, and even Factional Warfare require multiple people to achieve should clue you into that. Eve tolerates the solo player, it is not designed for it. You can't do everything in Eve solo. sorry.

Dramaticus
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.06.17 20:31:00 - [324]
 

Originally by: Buzz Boulderbrains
-Contrary to popular belief, mission-running is not without risk, particularly solo. I've lost many ships while trying to complete missions even with the help of others. It's called a learning experience, and I realize it takes time to get to *your* skill level of uber-leetness. Until that time, I'll be taking that risk when I head into level3 or level4 missions by myself, or even with a small group of friends.


These can't be level 4 missions because I havent come close to losing my CNR to a level 4 mission.

redCube
Gallente
Singlebude
Posted - 2008.06.21 19:11:00 - [325]
 

Edited by: redCube on 22/06/2008 09:36:20
Well... don't go to 0.5 if concord takes to long. IMHO it is an important aspect of eve, that you are ALWAYS in the risk of beeing attacked. As the tutorial states: Never ever fit anything that you are not willing to lose.

Miner Nine
Caldari
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2008.06.21 21:02:00 - [326]
 

Originally by: redCube
Well... don't go to 0.5 if concord takes to long. IMHO it is an important aspect of eve, that you are ALWAYS in the risk of beeing attacked. As the tutorial states: Never ever fit anything that you are not willing to loose.
\
lose

I do full time production in Empire, but I accept the risk of being suicide gank. It's been part of the game for years. If I do get suicide gank, then it's my fault for not getting a scout to see if gates are clear(ish).

Their is already cons to suicide ganking, first you lose your ship. When ever you lose a ship insurence helps but it never covers the full cost of the ship. Next, you sec rating goes down. Thus you'll have to spend your time bring it up. While you may be making money doing this, if you're into ganking then you are most likely not going enjoy ratting.

This game isn't WoW, we don't have PvE servers. We got PvP server that has some PvE aspects in it, if you don't want to get gank. Max out the low slots of your ship with wrap stabs and don't go into lowsec. I don't see why you want to play a game with zero risks and you can't lose. The change to insurence seems like a cheap blow to gankers to make it more of a lost to the efforts they spend just so some people can make more profit and watch tv as they run missions.

Cpt Fina
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation
space weaponry and trade
Posted - 2008.06.22 08:03:00 - [327]
 

Not suported.

But additional means for freighters to reduce risk needs to be looked at imo.
People that want to make changes in Eve by enhancing game-mechanics/-rules and/or NPCs makes me a sad panda.

Hastur DragonTooth
Amarr
Optimus Crime.
Triumvirate.
Posted - 2008.06.22 11:49:00 - [328]
 

I do not support this issue.

Quote:
A mission runner in a semi-decently fitted ship is scanned at his mission station using a passive targeter


Suicide gankers are not targeting 'decently fitted ravens.' Pimp my ride boats are the targets and rightfully so. There should be a risk when you undock anywhere in eve in your 5bil isk Raven. This is not WoW, toning down such aspects of the game will make it less appealing to a good number of people.

Stalkman
Posted - 2008.06.22 14:14:00 - [329]
 

I agree and/or support this idea.

Inanna Zuni
Minmatar
The Causality
Electus Matari
Posted - 2008.06.22 14:46:00 - [330]
 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A discussion between the CSM and CCP / Devs
on the issues about Suicide Ganking, the
consequences of it, and the relationship
with insurance took place this morning. A number
of possibilities were reviewed and announcements
will be made.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

IZ


Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 : last (15)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only